User talk:Newt Winkler

You've recently prod'ed articles of highly notable people (former chief minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh, current Minister of State for External Affairs Preneet Kaur ) giving as a reason "no sources" - please be advised that lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, and by extension, not a valid reason to prod an article. I would normally assume just lack of knowldege, but I see that you been involved in edit wars on those articles, dating bakc 6 moths or more - so I suspect there is some WP:POINT at play here. My Canada (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BLP articles with no sources are not supposed to exist on Wikipedia. It seems to be a perfectly valid reason. And far from edit-warring, I've been trying to enforce Wikipedia's Manual of Style rules on the use of honorifics. But I'm sure you won't listen, since you appear to be a single-purpose editor, a sockpuppet, or a harassment sock -- or maybe all three. So either go away or take it to the powers that be. Thanks for playing. Newt ^(winkle) 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Newt Winkler (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My reason for unblock is that I don't know why I was blocked in the first place! What us going on?

Decline reason:

I see a clear reading of WP:NOTTHEM, a whole whack of WP:SOAP, and a complete lack of WP:AGF. Whether or not this is indeed a WP:SOCK, it is clear that this editor does not get the collaborative approach that is required on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I must admit that I do not understand Wikipedia. So much seems to be contrary to normal and accepted practices of researh and academic writing. As such, I completely do not understand why I have been blocked. I am not a banned user. However, the effect of my block is clear: in the short time one user has re-inserted honorifics that are (to my reading) not allowed in the Wikipieda manual of style, and the same user has deleted inconvenient facts about the object of his reverence. Perhaps this is why I was banned. I don't have, and have certainly never edited with, a political bias. However, I have tusseled with any editors with clear poltical points of view. Perhaps this ban was for insisting on equal treatment for opposing political entitites. In any case, the effect is the same -- Wikipedia seems to favor editors of clearly-defined political stripes, and if someone steps out if line, they get ejected. 'Tis a shame for Wikipedia, but I suppose to be expected in this sort of environment. Newt ^(winkle) 08:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several members of the functionaries list (that is, users with WP:CHECKUSER) have examined your contributions. Technically and behaviorally, this account appears to be the sock of User:Gnetwerker. We are in consensus this point. The block was not made in response to the content of any of your recent edits. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will set aside the question of how I can be "technically and behaviorally" similar to an account that has not edited in nearly four years, and has less than 15 edits. I will just say -- that is not me. How do I go about proving this? Newt ^(winkle) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original Gnetwerker account was renamed because he was supposed to be vanishing from the site per WP:RTV. However, this user has returned as a series of socks. These previous accounts appear to technically match you (that is, the location of your editing appears to be the same) and behaviorally match you (that is, your interests and focus are the same). Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Its a coincidence then, though I'd be curious to know what you think "my interests" are, given that they have mainly been vandal-fighting and minor attempts to enforce Wikipedia's WP:MOS and WP:NPOV rules. I think it much more likely that the POV-warrior User:Breein1007 is somewhere behind this, and you are throwing up a smokescreen with some other, long-gone user. Whatever. Newt ^(winkle) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me out of this. This is your problem, not mine. Breein1007 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the editing of User:Breein1007, and I can tell you that he was not involved in your block in any way. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound very convincing, and more patronizing than anything. I'm not convinced that this block should be overturned, so I leaning on declining. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for the editorial contributions.

This user helped promote American Airlines Flight 191 to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]